SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment

[Loner]

As far as "assault weapons" go, other then it being a retarded term, one of my favorite hunting rifles is an AR-10 which I've got 20 round magazines for (hi-cap, oh noes!), and it looks meanacing as all hell... Never used it to assault anything other then deer though.

Armalite, Fulton, or some other manufacturer?

[Rogue 9]

Surlethe, the 2nd Amendment (or the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.) wasn't ratified at the Philadelphia Convention either; that's why the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments. The Convention overruled enumerating explicit rights at all in the main body of the Constitution because they feared that by enumerating some rights, they would by implication deny others, which is the last thing they wanted to do.

The Bill of Rights was ratified later as a compromise measure; that they rejected similarly worded proposals at the Convention itself doesn't mean anything.

These 14 proposals weren't at the Philadelphia Convention; they were generated by the Antifederalist faction at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in their dissenting opinion. The Bill of Rights incorporated many of the ideas and proposed amendments in the 14 points that the Antifederalists proposed. The point here is that the Congress did not use a proposed amendment which explicitly protected the right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting -- and therefore, the Second Amendment does not protect those "rights".

Oh, so you're not talking about the convention with delegates from all the states, but rather about some guys from Pennsylvania coming up with an idea while not in conference with the other states. Gee, that's a whole lot better for demonstrating the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

The Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention was held November 20 through December 11, 1787. The Bill of Rights was introduced and ratified in 1791, four years later. The Pennsylvania convention's proposals were not in direct competition with the Bill of Rights, and in fact were never even presented to the other states; it's not a matter of one being chosen over the other.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, the 2nd Amendment (or the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.) wasn't ratified at the Philadelphia Convention either; that's why the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments. The Convention overruled enumerating explicit rights at all in the main body of the Constitution because they feared that by enumerating some rights, they would by implication deny others, which is the last thing they wanted to do.

The Bill of Rights was ratified later as a compromise measure; that they rejected similarly worded proposals at the Convention itself doesn't mean anything.

These 14 proposals weren't at the Philadelphia Convention; they were generated by the Antifederalist faction at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in their dissenting opinion. The Bill of Rights incorporated many of the ideas and proposed amendments in the 14 points that the Antifederalists proposed. The point here is that the Congress did not use a proposed amendment which explicitly protected the right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting -- and therefore, the Second Amendment does not protect those "rights".

Oh, so you're not talking about the convention with delegates from all the states, but rather about some guys from Pennsylvania coming up with an idea while not in conference with the other states. Gee, that's a whole lot better for demonstrating the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

The Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention was held November 20 through December 11, 1787. The Bill of Rights was introduced and ratified in 1791, four years later. The Pennsylvania convention's proposals were not in direct competition with the Bill of Rights, and in fact were never even presented to the other states; it's not a matter of one being chosen over the other.

Of course not -- the Pennsylvania convention's proposals were incorporated into the Bill of Rights, and presented to the other states as the proposed Bill of Rights. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights chose not to use the amendment designed to protect gun ownership for self-defense and hunting. Therefore, they did not intend for the Second Amendment to protect gun ownership for self-defense and hunting.

[Rogue 9]

Either that, or they considered "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be clear enough, and more concise; you have to admit that the Pennsylvania anti-federalists' proposal was more than a little wordy. The fact that the militia is also discussed in the amendment has no bearing on the fact that it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

[Darth Wong]

Considering the fraction of my resources ...

Why the fuck do you think this thread is about YOU in particular?

Owning handguns doesn't require living in fear of being murdered.

And since when did I make THAT claim, liar?

But the fact that crime reporting is exaggerated does not mean that I shouldn't be prepared for a very small possibility for which I can easily afford to be prepared.

And when did I say that it's bad to be prepared? What I said was that it's paranoid to think you need a gun all the time to protect yourself. You seem bound and determined to hijack this conversation, but this tangent was originally about the NRA and its asinine belief that people should be able to carry guns everywhere, because they're afraid of getting killed by the bogeyman. That's paranoia with a capital "P".

I don't believe that a self-defense argument means that one has to make the identical self-defense preparations for every situation and follow them indiscriminately, all the time.

Do you believe people should be able to carry guns everywhere, as per the NRA? If not, then you're wasting my time by trying to take this conversation away from the subject material and toward your asinine belief that this thread is all about YOU personally.

[Surlethe]

Either that, or they considered "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be clear enough, and more concise; you have to admit that the Pennsylvania anti-federalists' proposal was more than a little wordy. The fact that the militia is also discussed in the amendment has no bearing on the fact that it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

It's not merely a matter of a militia being "discussed"; the milita exists as an integral part of the amendment. It means that the right of the people to bear arms exists for the purpose of arming a militia, not for the purpose of self-defense and hunting. The fact the amendment was incorporated from the Pennsylvania list while the proposal to protect gun ownership for hunting and self-defense was not only supports this interpretation.

[Rogue 9]

Either that, or they considered "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be clear enough, and more concise; you have to admit that the Pennsylvania anti-federalists' proposal was more than a little wordy. The fact that the militia is also discussed in the amendment has no bearing on the fact that it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

It's not merely a matter of a militia being "discussed"; the milita exists as an integral part of the amendment. It means that the right of the people to bear arms exists for the purpose of arming a militia, not for the purpose of self-defense and hunting. The fact the amendment was incorporated from the Pennsylvania list while the proposal to protect gun ownership for hunting and self-defense was not only supports this interpretation.

There are two separate clauses. One states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The other one says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If all they wanted was "We shall have and arm a militia," then the amendment would have said something to the effect of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the members of the militia shall keep and bear arms." Regardless of reason, it says the right of the people shall not be infringed, and as far as constitutional law goes, that is that. And I can very confidently sit here and say that, because the Supreme Court, which holds the legal authority to make this interpretation, said that, and you, my friend, are not the Supreme Court.

There is a very important thing to remember about the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in general. It exists to define the limitations of government authority, not to limit the citizens; the latter is the job of statutory law. If the Second Amendment were the only part of the whole damned thing to place a limit upon the people rather than the government, it would be incredibly incongruous, and contrary to the purpose of the document. And at the end of the day, there's the dear old Ninth Amendment, which flatly states that the enumeration of certain rights doesn't mean that others may be denied. Even if you were absolutely correct in what you say, the right to keep and bear is nowhere explicitly denied, and therefore allowed under the Ninth Amendment. I am convinced that it isn't necessary to use that for this particular right, but it's there all the same.

[Mr. Coffee]

As far as "assault weapons" go, other then it being a retarded term, one of my favorite hunting rifles is an AR-10 which I've got 20 round magazines for (hi-cap, oh noes!), and it looks meanacing as all hell... Never used it to assault anything other then deer though.

Armalite, Fulton, or some other manufacturer?

ArmaLite. Cost a little bit, but I think it was worth it.

[Surlethe]

Either that, or they considered "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be clear enough, and more concise; you have to admit that the Pennsylvania anti-federalists' proposal was more than a little wordy. The fact that the militia is also discussed in the amendment has no bearing on the fact that it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

It's not merely a matter of a militia being "discussed"; the milita exists as an integral part of the amendment. It means that the right of the people to bear arms exists for the purpose of arming a militia, not for the purpose of self-defense and hunting. The fact the amendment was incorporated from the Pennsylvania list while the proposal to protect gun ownership for hunting and self-defense was not only supports this interpretation.

There are two separate clauses. One states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The other one says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If all they wanted was "We shall have and arm a militia," then the amendment would have said something to the effect of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the members of the militia shall keep and bear arms." Regardless of reason, it says the right of the people shall not be infringed, and as far as constitutional law goes, that is that.

If you want to get into grammar, the first clause is subordinate to the second, effectively creating a conditional: because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is consequently clear that the clearly enumerated right to bear arms exists solely for the purpose of keeping a well-regulated militia. The historical context I have demonstrated merely reinforces this more straightforward interpretation.

And I can very confidently sit here and say that, because the Supreme Court, which holds the legal authority to make this interpretation, said that, and you, my friend, are not the Supreme Court.

But you can't use the Supreme Court's decision to contest me when I call the Supreme Court's decision bullshit, now, can you?

There is a very important thing to remember about the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in general. It exists to define the limitations of government authority, not to limit the citizens; the latter is the job of statutory law. If the Second Amendment were the only part of the whole damned thing to place a limit upon the people rather than the government, it would be incredibly incongruous, and contrary to the purpose of the document. And at the end of the day, there's the dear old Ninth Amendment, which flatly states that the enumeration of certain rights doesn't mean that others may be denied. Even if you were absolutely correct in what you say, the right to keep and bear is nowhere explicitly denied, and therefore allowed under the Ninth Amendment. I am convinced that it isn't necessary to use that for this particular right, but it's there all the same.

Well, of course. My position all along has been that keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting is not a right explicitly reserved to the people by the Constitution.

[Galvatron]

Frankly, I think we should have a well-regulated militia just as the Swiss do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

[Robert Treder]

Re: self defense, I think it would be interesting to see a report of the number of gun-owners who are also smokers.

[Broomstick]

Well, of course. My position all along has been that keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting is not a right explicitly reserved to the people by the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Surlethe]

Well, of course. My position all along has been that keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting is not a right explicitly reserved to the people by the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That doesn't explicitly give the right to bear arms, does it?

[Broomstick]

No - but neither does it deny you that right. It was included specifically to counter arguments such as you are using, so that later on people couldn't say "that right isn't explicit in the constitution, therefore you do not have it."

[Glocksman]

Well, of course. My position all along has been that keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and hunting is not a right explicitly reserved to the people by the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That doesn't explicitly give the right to bear arms, does it?

Since RKBA was widely recognized in the former colonies at the time of adoption, I'd say it does.
That said, I can take your argument and use it even more effectively to repeal Roe, as the right to an abortion isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

As for your saying the justification clause limits the operative clause, Eugene Volokh shows that the style used at the time of adoption of the BoR wasn't all that uncommon and that justification clause isn't a limitation of RKBA to the miliia.

The Commonplace Second Amendment.

[Coyote]

It's also important to remember that the "Militia" was pretty much any healthy person cycling oxygen between the ages of 16-60. It was a civic duty to repel invasions, deal with revolutions, etc. That's why one of the sticking points about the role and interpretation of the "Militia" as the "National Guard" was so problematic; because the National Guard was inherently discriminatory in its hiring practices. In order to be in compliance with Federal Army regulations (to serve as a support role for the regular Army) they could not enlist the elderly, diabetics, epilieptics, etc.

It would be somewhat pointless to declare "You can't own a weapon unless you're in a Militia. Oh, by the way, you're all in the Militia."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Glocksman is of course right, one can make all kinds of ethical arguments why the right to abortion could be incorporated in the backdoor through some "suggested" right to privacy through due process clauses and constitutional case law and what have you, and that's better than the Second Amendment incorporating the individual right to bear arms. However, as a matter of law and "reading into the document," I have to admit that if anything Roe is much more of a stretch than this, and one cannot consistently oppose this ruling on the basis of originalism or originalistic arguments and simultaneously intellectually honestly support Roe.

[SVPD]

That .375 Magnum revolver you mention later in that post can be used as a hunting weapon just fine. It's the the weapon itself that makes it a "hunting weapon", it's the cartridge used. Last time I looked every state in the Union bases it's hunting firearms restrictions by the caliber/cartridge and not by the firearm itself.

Yes, it can. However, when I say "Hunting Weapon" I mean a weapon that is designed to be used primarily for hunting. The .357 Magnum cartridge may or may not have been designed with that in mind, and I am quite aware that it can be used for hunting animals as large as deer, but its design is as a general-purpose high-powered revolver.

Notice that revolvers whose purpose is specifically hunting, especially large game, such the various enormous, heavy-caliber revolvers you can find are just as unpopular amng criminals as hunting rifles, despite their incredible (for a handgun) power, mainly because of their lack of concealability, expecially in conjunction with their cost.

You are right that the cartridge is partially what makes a weapon a hunting weapon, and that states designate acceptable hunting weapons by cartridge. However, the fact is that almost any weapon can be used for hunting something or other, even if that something is only small squirrels. When people talk about hunting weapons, they are customarily referring to weapons whose primary purpose is hunting, and the design of which reflects that purpose. I could go hunting for racoons with an MP-5, but that doesn't make submachineguns "hunting weapons."

[Rogue 9]

It's also important to remember that the "Militia" was pretty much any healthy person cycling oxygen between the ages of 16-60. It was a civic duty to repel invasions, deal with revolutions, etc. That's why one of the sticking points about the role and interpretation of the "Militia" as the "National Guard" was so problematic; because the National Guard was inherently discriminatory in its hiring practices. In order to be in compliance with Federal Army regulations (to serve as a support role for the regular Army) they could not enlist the elderly, diabetics, epilieptics, etc.

It would be somewhat pointless to declare "You can't own a weapon unless you're in a Militia. Oh, by the way, you're all in the Militia."

I actually brought this up with Surlethe over instant messenger; the militia consists of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. Per the United States Code:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Restricting weapons to the militia coincidentally arms the most crime-prone segments of the population (namely, young men) while simultaneously disarming their most frequent victims (namely, women, the elderly, and the infirm). This doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea, even if the strict reading of the Bill of Rights did allow for it.

[Mr. Coffee]

You are right that the cartridge is partially what makes a weapon a hunting weapon, and that states designate acceptable hunting weapons by cartridge.

Actually, no, it has nothing to do with what makes a firearm a hunting weapon. Those restrictions on caliber/cartridge usually about maintaining an acceptable minimum standard for reliably killing a given game animal.

When people talk about hunting weapons, they are customarily referring to weapons whose primary purpose is hunting, and the design of which reflects that purpose. I could go hunting for racoons with an MP-5, but that doesn't make submachineguns "hunting weapons."

Some of the cartridges I like to hunt with were originally designed for killing humans and not deer, but they work great on deer, because like people, they're made of meat. I mean, I could use my Remington 700BDL to snipe people from a couple of few hundred yards off, but that doesn't make it a "sniper rifle", right? Go to firearms dealer and pick a random "hunting" rifle off the shelf and I'll bet you dollars to pesos that it has an ancestor that was purpose designed to kill people. Same can work in reverse with other rifle or pistols. It's not the weapon or the cartridge, those are just tools. it's the person using that tool that uses it for a given purpose.

[SVPD]

Actually, no, it has nothing to do with what makes a firearm a hunting weapon. Those restrictions on caliber/cartridge usually about maintaining an acceptable minimum standard for reliably killing a given game animal.

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Weapons that do not reliably kill what you are hunting for are, by definition, not hunting weapons, since the point of hunting is to kill the animal.

Some of the cartridges I like to hunt with were originally designed for killing humans and not deer, but they work great on deer, because like people, they're made of meat. I mean, I could use my Remington 700BDL to snipe people from a couple of few hundred yards off, but that doesn't make it a "sniper rifle", right? Go to firearms dealer and pick a random "hunting" rifle off the shelf and I'll bet you dollars to pesos that it has an ancestor that was purpose designed to kill people. Same can work in reverse with other rifle or pistols. It's not the weapon or the cartridge, those are just tools. it's the person using that tool that uses it for a given purpose.

You are absolutely correct on your facts, and you are even correct that the weapon is a tool and the person uses it for a particular purpose.

However, certain tools are designed for certain jobs. I can use the side of a crescent wrench to drive a nail if I'm in a pinch, but that does not make a crescent wrench a hammer, just like the ability to shoot a racoon with an MP-5 does not make a submachinegun a hunting weapon; that is not its primary purpose. It's primary purpose is assault in very close quarters, and its physical characteristics match that purpose. Some weapons, such as shotguns, have a wide variety of purposes for which they are well suited. With a slug round and a scope, you could conceivably use a shotgun for sniping (at unreasonably short ranges) but that doesn't mean a shotgun is a sniper rifle just because someone chose to use it that way.

I was not, when I originally referred to hunting weapons, attempting to establish some dogmatic/legalistic categorization of weapons, but rather to refer to weapons which are designed primarily for hunting, and whose most effective use is for that purpose. It was in order to illustrate that the primary attributes a criminal looks for are not, in fact, penetration, stopping power, or ability to pierce armor, but rather concealability, portability, ease of use, and magazine capacity.

You responded that a .357 Magnum, a popular criminal weapon, can be used as a hunting weapon. That is quite true, and it also illustrates why dogmatic, mutually exclusive classifications of firearms are not usually very good descriptors, but it does nothing to dispute the point that weapons designed primarily for hunting favor firepower over concealability, portability, low cost, magazine capacity and ease of use (under which I include practice required to use it effectively; it rquires far more practice, even with a very accurate rifle, to hit a target at 300 yards than to shoot a store clerk at 3 feet).

Obviously a weapon can be both a "handgun" and a "hunting weapon", such as the enormous Raging Bull Revolvers and the like, but these are unpopular criminal weapons because they sacrifice most of the concealability, portability, cost, and ease of use advantages, and make no gains in magazine capacity in exchange for a firepower advantage that the criminal really doesn't need. The .357 is a favorite criminal weapon precisely because it retains a high level of firepower without making unacceptable sacrifices in other areas. However, the fact of the matter is that while it can be used for hunting, it is really not a great choice for that, and hunting is not its main purpose. It was, in fact, originally designed by Smith and Wesson to retain their preeminent position in providing law enforcement firearms of that era (circa 1934) in part because other contemporary cartirdges were having difficulty defeating the primitive ballistic vests appearing in that period. Its use today remains primarily self-defense and security work, and some police departments still use it. However, it is not primarily a hunting cartridge, despite the existance of some long guns chambered for it, and especially not in the much-more-common revolver, sicne other cartridges, and weapons designed to utilize them, are readily available.

[Mr. Coffee]

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Weapons that do not reliably kill what you are hunting for are, by definition, not hunting weapons, since the point of hunting is to kill the animal.

Animal/Human, same difference. The hunting regulations for calibers/cartridges aren't used to define what is an isn't a "hunting rifle", it's used to maintain a minimum acceptable standard to kill a given game animal without causing unnecessary suffering. Has nothing to do with the type of stock, barrel, operating mechanism, or magazine capacity (you know, the things that are actually used to define "assault" weapons vs "sporting" weapons). It's all about telling hunters "this is the smallest cartidge you are allowed to use to kill X".

However, certain tools are designed for certain jobs. I can use the side of a crescent wrench to drive a nail if I'm in a pinch, but that does not make a crescent wrench a hammer, just like the ability to shoot a racoon with an MP-5 does not make a submachinegun a hunting weapon; that is not its primary purpose. It's primary purpose is assault in very close quarters, and its physical characteristics match that purpose.

My favorite framing hammer was designed to drive nails but it break up tile, drywall, and stone in a pinch. Just because it was designed with a "primary" purpose in mind doesn't mean it can't be used for other things.

Some weapons, such as shotguns, have a wide variety of purposes for which they are well suited. With a slug round and a scope, you could conceivably use a shotgun for sniping (at unreasonably short ranges) but that doesn't mean a shotgun is a sniper rifle just because someone chose to use it that way.

Yeah, you could do it. You'd look like a complete retard, but you could do it. In anycase, thanks for proving my point about the user of the tool defining the tool's use.

I was not, when I originally referred to hunting weapons, attempting to establish some dogmatic/legalistic categorization of weapons, but rather to refer to weapons which are designed primarily for hunting, and whose most effective use is for that purpose.

Mauser 98... Originally designed as a service rifle for the German army. Primary purpose was to kill people. Wouldn't you know it, turns out it makes a damned fine hunting rifle.

Colt Python .375 magnum, designed as handgun meant to kill people. Turns out, it's a great pistol for short range hunting.

I'll repeat it since you're not getting it yet...

The person using the tool decides what the end use of the tool will be.

It was in order to illustrate that the primary attributes a criminal looks for are not, in fact, penetration, stopping power, or ability to pierce armor, but rather concealability, portability, ease of use, and magazine capacity.

Wouldn't you know it, but concealability and all that are what I look for in a carry pistol. I'm a law abiding citizen. But yeah, let's restrict legal sales of firearms based on criminals do with them illegally. Cause that totally makes sense, yo.

You responded that a .357 Magnum, a popular criminal weapon, can be used as a hunting weapon.

Ok, show me where it you're getting this "it's a popular gun with criminals" crap from.

That is quite true, and it also illustrates why dogmatic, mutually exclusive classifications of firearms are not usually very good descriptors, but it does nothing to dispute the point that weapons designed primarily for hunting favor firepower over concealability

Considering that most hunting firearms are rifles, no shit, Sherlock.

portability,

Define portability? Cause I distinctly remember the homeboys back in the day glorifying the fuck out of AKs and SKSs, which aren't all that concealable (except for in car), but sure as hell are portable. They also make great deer rifles too...

low cost,

I can name off a couple of few semiautomatic rifles that are "portable", easily concealed in a car or big coat, and cost less then most any .375 magnum pistol.

magazine capacity

I hunt with a couple of different weapons that have magazine capacities of 10 rounds or greater.


See, you missed the real key consideration for most criminals when it comes to obtaining a firearm. Availability...

Obviously a weapon can be both a "handgun" and a "hunting weapon", such as the enormous Raging Bull Revolvers and the like, but these are unpopular criminal weapons because they sacrifice most of the concealability, portability, cost, and ease of use advantages, and make no gains in magazine capacity in exchange for a firepower advantage that the criminal really doesn't need.

Bullshit. I've taken deer with S&W 686 with a 6" barrel and it's concealable as all hell (can hide it under a t-shirt by tucking it in the waist of my pants if I wanted to). Those bigger hunting pistols, like the Taurus Raging Bull you mentioned, are that big because they fire ginormous rounds like .454 Casul (which isn't that hard to conceal either if you've got a coat on).

The .357 is a favorite criminal weapon precisely because it retains a high level of firepower without making unacceptable sacrifices in other areas.

Ok, do you have some sort of authoritive source for this "criminals love .375s" or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

However, the fact of the matter is that while it can be used for hunting, it is really not a great choice for that, and hunting is not its main purpose.

And you based this on what? It works great on deer.

It was, in fact, originally designed by Smith and Wesson to retain their preeminent position in providing law enforcement firearms of that era (circa 1934) in part because other contemporary cartirdges were having difficulty defeating the primitive ballistic vests appearing in that period. Its use today remains primarily self-defense and security work, and some police departments still use it. However, it is not primarily a hunting cartridge, despite the existance of some long guns chambered for it, and especially not in the much-more-common revolver, sicne other cartridges, and weapons designed to utilize them, are readily available.

Oh... I see you went and looked at the wiki. I guess you missed the bit about Elmer Kieth, who applied what he knew about hunting animals to making a pistol cartridge that kills both game and people equally well.

For the love of God and Sonny Jesus, just stop, SVPD.

[Galvatron]

Colt Python .375 magnum, designed as handgun meant to kill people. Turns out, it's a great pistol for short range hunting.

I can name off a couple of few semiautomatic rifles that are "portable", easily concealed in a car or big coat, and cost less then most any .375 magnum pistol.

Ok, do you have some sort of authoritive source for this "criminals love .375s" or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

You're driving me crazy with this ".375" stuff. The caliber is .357 Magnum. 3-5-7.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, please continue...

[Mr. Coffee]

You're driving me crazy with this ".375" stuff. The caliber is .357 Magnum. 3-5-7.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, please continue...

My bad, homie. Friggin' typing to fast again.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is however a .375 magnum rifle cartridge.